Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30232632›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical systems2018

Systematic Review of an Automated Multiclass Detection and Classification System for Acute Leukaemia in Terms of Evaluation and Benchmarking, Open Challenges, Issues and Methodological Aspects.

M A Alsalem, A A Zaidan, B B Zaidan, M Hashim, O S Albahri, A S Albahri, Ali Hadi, K I Mohammed

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

M A AlsalemDepartment of Computing, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.
A A ZaidanDepartment of Computing, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia. aws.alaa@gmail.com.
B B ZaidanDepartment of Computing, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.
M HashimDepartment of Computing, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.
O S AlbahriDepartment of Computing, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.
A S AlbahriDepartment of Computing, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.
Ali HadiDepartment of Computing, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.
K I MohammedDepartment of Computing, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to systematically review prior research on the evaluation and benchmarking of automated acute leukaemia classification tasks. The review depends on three reliable search engines: ScienceDirect, Web of Science and IEEE Xplore. A research taxonomy developed for the review considers a wide perspective for automated detection and classification of acute leukaemia research and reflects the usage trends in the evaluation criteria in this field. The developed taxonomy consists of three main research directions in this domain. The taxonomy involves two phases. The first phase includes all three research directions. The second one demonstrates all the criteria used for evaluating acute leukaemia classification. The final set of studies includes 83 investigations, most of which focused on enhancing the accuracy and performance of detection and classification through proposed methods or systems. Few efforts were made to undertake the evaluation issues. According to the final set of articles, three groups of articles represented the main research directions in this domain: 56 articles highlighted the proposed methods, 22 articles involved proposals for system development and 5 papers centred on evaluation and comparison. The other taxonomy side included 16 main and sub-evaluation and benchmarking criteria. This review highlights three serious issues in the evaluation and benchmarking of multiclass classification of acute leukaemia, namely, conflicting criteria, evaluation criteria and criteria importance. It also determines the weakness of benchmarking tools. To solve these issues, multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) analysis techniques were proposed as effective recommended solutions in the methodological aspect. This methodological aspect involves a proposed decision support system based on MCDM for evaluation and benchmarking to select suitable multiclass classification models for acute leukaemia. The said support system is examined and has three sequential phases. Phase One presents the identification procedure and process for establishing a decision matrix based on a crossover of evaluation criteria and acute leukaemia multiclass classification models. Phase Two describes the decision matrix development for the selection of acute leukaemia classification models based on the integrated Best and worst method (BWM) and VIKOR. Phase Three entails the validation of the proposed system.

Indexed as

AutomationBenchmarkingAcute DiseaseHumansLeukemiaResearchSearch EngineAcute leukaemiaBenchmarkingDetectionEvaluationEvaluation criteriaMCDMMulticlass classification

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.